Charlie Gard fight is over

KLDC10 · Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:30 pm

scbriml wrote:
So what happens in a situation where one parent wants life support turned off and the other doesn't? Who gets to decide then? In the UK, and I suspect most other countries, it will end up in court for a judge to decide.

I guess the closest legal situation to what you postulate would be abortion. The mother is allowed to decide to have an abortion without the permission of the father in many cases. So I imagine the decision should default to the mother.

Dutchy · Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:41 pm

scbriml wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
I'd hope their terrible decision will haunt them for the rest of their petty lives

Only works if you actually think it was a terrible decision.

Can't imagine that for anyone involved it hasn't been a terrible decision. There are no winners, only losers. Normally the parents and the doctors will agree on the best way forward, not in this case.

I guess aciationaware has too much emotionally invested in this. Don't know why though. His outbursts are far outside the lines of which is considered adult behavior.

Tugger · Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:41 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
So what happens in a situation where one parent wants life support turned off and the other doesn't? Who gets to decide then? In the UK, and I suspect most other countries, it will end up in court for a judge to decide.

I guess the closest legal situation to what you postulate would be abortion. The mother is allowed to decide to have an abortion without the permission of the father in many cases. So I imagine the decision should default to the mother.

The only reason a mother gets to decide regarding abortion is because it is her own body and we all have say over our body in normal circumstances (yes, there is debate on this that is far to large for this thread). Once outside the woman's body there is no reason for the mother alone to have dictatorial authority greater than the father over someone.

Tugg

moo · Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:56 pm

aviationaware wrote:
jetwet1 wrote:
We can all agree that this was a horrible situation where there really were no winners right ?

That's not the issue, the issue is that the kid could have been a winner if not for a bunch of pharisaic assholes who think they have a better grasp on what's good for the kid than his own parents.

Oh yay, yet another idiot who thinks parental knowledge exceed that of a medical degree and years of experience treating...

And how would this kid ever come out a "winner"? The prevailing medical opinion is that his brain damage is severe enough that he may not even feel pain, but if he could feel pain then he would be in agony.

I'm sorry that I have to spell it out like this, but these parents haven't had a child for several months, they've had a corpse which has been kept alive artificially. There was no point at which this was preventable.

moo · Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:12 am

par13del wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Let me ask you a question though, do you feel that the parents are the best to assess their child's medical state and are the best to weigh all the options open to them?

The question could also be asked as to which doctors knew best, did the courts appoint independent doctors to review the case or they just took the findings of the doctors from the hospital where the baby was located,

The British courts that heard the case did hear from independent doctors.

par13del wrote:
how big is the NHS and the structure behind the decision making, how long would independent analysis take, did the patient have the time?

Great Ormond Street Hospital is the eminent childrens hospital in the UK, it is also a significant private charity and funds most of its operations from charity donations - the NHS doesn't come into the picture here, it never does in these cases.

GOSH is partnered with, and physically located adjacent to, UCL Institute of Child Health, which is Europes largest childrens research and medical teaching centre.

Plenty of other doctors for the core care team in this case to get second opinions from, which they did.

par13del wrote:
how long would independent analysis take, did the patient have the time?

Unfortunately Charlie was basically brain dead weeks after the diagnosis - he was diagnosed late November 2016, and had severe brain injury by early December 2016. He had been on a ventilator since early October 2016 and suffering severe seizures throughout.

GOSH doctors were willing to try nucleoside treatment in early January 2017, even though it had never been tested on humans, after much consideration and consultation - Charlie then had a set of severe seizures in January 2017, resulting in essential brain death and a further diagnosis of severe epileptic encephalopathy.

It was at this point that the doctors chose to recommend palliative care.

There has never been a treatment for his specific illness which has ever been tested on humans, and the suggested treatment from the US doctors have yet to even be tested on mice. There was never any guarantee of any improvement with the treatment, it had a low chance of success, and in this case success would simply be no worsening of the condition.

moo · Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:39 am

One further thing to note is that the US doctor touting the wonder treatment that Charlies parents are fixated on was offered the chance to visit Charlie in January, before the seizures occurred - he declined.

In fact, its worse than that.

This US doctor was presenting evidence to the British courts and ECHR despite confirming to the court that he had never read Charlies medical notes, looked at any of Charlies medical scans, or read any of the second opinions issued by experts who had physically examined Charlie in GOSH.

Further to that, the US doctor admitted in a court witness statement that he had significant financial interest in the treatments he was proposing.

Some people here really need to read the GOSH position statement:

http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/file/23731/downl ... n=TWJkSxZu

tommy1808 · Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:17 am

KLDC10 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
So what happens in a situation where one parent wants life support turned off and the other doesn't? Who gets to decide then? In the UK, and I suspect most other countries, it will end up in court for a judge to decide.

I guess the closest legal situation to what you postulate would be abortion. The mother is allowed to decide to have an abortion without the permission of the father in many cases. So I imagine the decision should default to the mother.

that situation isn´t even remotely related. In that case asking the father would eventually mean to force the mother to carry to term, which is an itzi bitzi violations oh her rights. Just like a kid isn´t its parents property, a mother ain´t the fathers.

But you did make sufficiently clear that the concept of humans beings property is very close to your heart.

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware · Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 pm

moo wrote:
Oh yay, yet another idiot who thinks parental knowledge exceed that of a medical degree and years of experience treating...

I am sure that's the same thing the doctor who treated me thought when he said I had only 3 months to live and my parents should book a lot in the cemetery and my parents took me to a more competent doctor.
Your faith in the expertise of individual physicians is disturbing.

moo wrote:
Further to that, the US doctor admitted in a court witness statement that he had significant financial interest in the treatments he was proposing.

The lamest excuse I have ever heard. Had the treatment gone wrong, in such a highly publicized case, the financial reprecussions would have been far greater than the gain he'd have had from this one case. That fact of the matter remains, this man was offering a potential solution and some beancounter on a court decided it was not worth it. Disgusting.

Tugger · Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:32 pm

aviationaware wrote:
That fact of the matter remains, this man was offering a potential solution and some beancounter on a court decided it was not worth it. Disgusting.

Again you are making an incorrect and unfounded statement. You are wrong. I can see such things are taken personally by you but there is nothing in this case about any "beancounter" issue being considered.

Tugg

Kiwirob · Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:17 pm

Cadet985 wrote:
If the government allowed him to die because of his condition and how it would impact his life, he was in pain, etc., then how come euthanasia for those with painful terminal illnesses is still largely illegal?

Marc

Exactly we wouldn't keep a dog alive in a similar condition so why keep humans going?

The reason why we don't humanely terminate people is down to religion imo! Religious arseholes won't allow good people to do the right thing.

scbriml · Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:06 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Your faith in the expertise of individual physicians is disturbing.

We don't know the circumstances of your case, but we do in the case of Charlie Gard. His diagnosis is not the result of a single doctor's examination. He's been examined by teams and multiple doctors (including additional opinions at the behest of the parents). There hasn't been a doctor that's examined him that has disputed the diagnosis by GOSH.

aviationaware wrote:
That fact of the matter remains, this man was offering a potential solution and some beancounter on a court decided it was not worth it. Disgusting.

It's not a fact at all, it's bullshit. In fact, it's double bullshit - the court didn't decide the experimental treatment was not worth it and when Dr Hirano could finally be bothered to examine Charlie (he was invited in January but failed to do anything until late July!), he agreed there was no hope. Which is why the parent finally dropped their case.

You can think it's "disgusting" all you like, but you're wrong. Just as you've been factually wrong with much of what you've posted in this thread.

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:40 pm

Just goes to show you, the government owns your children. Hope after all is said and done his parents move out of that country.

Dutchy · Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:54 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
Just goes to show you, the government owns your children. Hope after all is said and done his parents move out of that country.

Did you read the thread at all? Guess not, otherwise, you would not say such a thing. I guess, in your reasoning, kids are owned by their parents and not people in their own right, with rights and people whom look out for them.

Dutchy · Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:56 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The lamest excuse I have ever heard. Had the treatment gone wrong, in such a highly publicized case, the financial reprecussions would have been far greater than the gain he'd have had from this one case. That fact of the matter remains, this man was offering a potential solution and some beancounter on a court decided it was not worth it. Disgusting.

Where, in this case, was money on the side of Charlie - doctors on his behalf - an issue? Please show us.

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:00 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Just goes to show you, the government owns your children. Hope after all is said and done his parents move out of that country.

Did you read the thread at all? Guess not, otherwise, you would not say such a thing. I guess, in your reasoning, kids are owned by their parents and not people in their own right, with rights and people whom look out for them.

Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all. In this case, the hospital and the courts have shown clear intentions that they own poor Charlie.

Dutchy · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:06 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Just goes to show you, the government owns your children. Hope after all is said and done his parents move out of that country.

Did you read the thread at all? Guess not, otherwise, you would not say such a thing. I guess, in your reasoning, kids are owned by their parents and not people in their own right, with rights and people whom look out for them.

Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all. In this case, the hospital and the courts have shown clear intentions that they own poor Charlie.

The doctors thought, after consulting with others, that for Charlie the "treatment" would over no relieve and he probably would be in pain, so you could say in that sense, it was abuse or an inhumane environment. The court ruled that it was not in the best interest of Charlie to move to the US for this highly experimental treatment. It was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, so numerous courts have looked at the case and before that a second and third opinion, all ruled the same.

scbriml · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:15 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
Just goes to show you, the government owns your children. Hope after all is said and done his parents move out of that country.

No, it just goes to show you know nothing about this case. Please show me where the government has been involved. I'll wait...

Super80Fan wrote:
Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all.

There has been no government involvement in this case. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

All the answers are clearly explained in this thread. Have you read it all?

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:20 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Did you read the thread at all? Guess not, otherwise, you would not say such a thing. I guess, in your reasoning, kids are owned by their parents and not people in their own right, with rights and people whom look out for them.

Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all. In this case, the hospital and the courts have shown clear intentions that they own poor Charlie.

The doctors thought, after consulting with others, that for Charlie the "treatment" would over no relieve and he probably would be in pain, so you could say in that sense, it was abuse or an inhumane environment. The court ruled that it was not in the best interest of Charlie to move to the US for this highly experimental treatment. It was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, so numerous courts have looked at the case and before that a second and third opinion, all ruled the same.

In this case, I completely agree, the doctors, whom I "usually" trust, give their expert opinion and it should be followed. I am for quality of life over quantity. That being said, this sets a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's health is out of your control.

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:21 pm

scbriml wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Just goes to show you, the government owns your children. Hope after all is said and done his parents move out of that country.

No, it just goes to show you know nothing about this case. Please show me where the government has been involved. I'll wait...

Super80Fan wrote:
Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all.

There has been no government involvement in this case. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

All the answers are clearly explained in this thread. Have you read it all?

Why do you enjoy government involvement in people's personal lives? The government controls/owns the hospital, so I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Tugger · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:28 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
The government controls/owns the hospital, so I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Just curious, are you saying that you trust a corporation more?

I am not saying anything about trusting or not trusting the government. I just know that corporations are not particularly any more "trustworthy" than the government.

Tugg

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:31 pm

Tugger wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
The government controls/owns the hospital, so I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Just curious, are you saying that you trust a corporation more?

I am not saying anything about trusting or not trusting the government. I just know that corporations are not particularly any more "trustworthy" than the government.

Tugg

Only a tiny bit, because in this case I can assure you the corporate owned/controlled hospital would make their opinion/diagnoses and leave it up to the parents to decide what to do. With a government run facility you have absolutely no choice. Well, you do, but you end up in cuffs.

Tugger · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:41 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
Only a tiny bit, because in this case I can assure you the corporate owned/controlled hospital would make their opinion/diagnoses and leave it up to the parents to decide what to do.

Sorry but I completely disagree. There is no way a corporate hospital would be in any way more likely to "leave it up to the parents". No way. It would up to the doctors (first) and then the policies and affordability to the hospital (second).

I do not see where you getting what you say.

Tugg

scbriml · Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:45 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
The government controls/owns the hospital

Wow, just wow. I suggest you read a bit more about GOSH. :crazy:

Super80Fan wrote:
I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Don't worry, it's entirely mutual. You're making no sense, whatsoever.

Dutchy · Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:10 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:

Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all. In this case, the hospital and the courts have shown clear intentions that they own poor Charlie.

The doctors thought, after consulting with others, that for Charlie the "treatment" would over no relieve and he probably would be in pain, so you could say in that sense, it was abuse or an inhumane environment. The court ruled that it was not in the best interest of Charlie to move to the US for this highly experimental treatment. It was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, so numerous courts have looked at the case and before that a second and third opinion, all ruled the same.

In this case, I completely agree, the doctors, whom I "usually" trust, give their expert opinion and it should be followed. I am for quality of life over quantity. That being said, this sets a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's health is out of your control.

Do you accept that your child can be taken away if you don't take care of them properly?

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:26 pm

scbriml wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
The government controls/owns the hospital

Wow, just wow. I suggest you read a bit more about GOSH.

Super80Fan wrote:
I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Don't worry, it's entirely mutual. You're making no sense, whatsoever.

It's affiliated with University College London (public university) and the National Health Service, are you telling me that's not government?

Super80Fan · Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:27 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

The doctors thought, after consulting with others, that for Charlie the "treatment" would over no relieve and he probably would be in pain, so you could say in that sense, it was abuse or an inhumane environment. The court ruled that it was not in the best interest of Charlie to move to the US for this highly experimental treatment. It was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, so numerous courts have looked at the case and before that a second and third opinion, all ruled the same.

In this case, I completely agree, the doctors, whom I "usually" trust, give their expert opinion and it should be followed. I am for quality of life over quantity. That being said, this sets a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's health is out of your control.

Do you accept that your child can be taken away if you don't take care of them properly?

Yes and would expect and support it.

Dutchy · Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:36 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:

In this case, I completely agree, the doctors, whom I "usually" trust, give their expert opinion and it should be followed. I am for quality of life over quantity. That being said, this sets a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's health is out of your control.

Do you accept that your child can be taken away if you don't take care of them properly?

Yes and would expect and support it.

Doesn't this set a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's wellbeing is out of your control.

Channex757 · Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:48 pm

Super80Fan wrote:

It's affiliated with University College London (public university) and the National Health Service, are you telling me that's not government?

No it isn't.

GOSH is a Foundation Trust. Many NHS hospitals and groups are now Trusts. They get their funding as block grants from commissioning groups, and GOSH has a substantial charitable income too.

It's as independent as many of your US hospitals that are not corporate insurance mills.

These trusts get their money to provide a service. The greater NHS nowadays is more like a huge insurance company with an additional budget for buildings and investment. GP groups are the main money holders. In addition, the Trusts don't make clinical decisions; that is down to the doctors on the ward.

JJJ · Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:58 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Do you accept that your child can be taken away if you don't take care of them properly?

Yes and would expect and support it.

Doesn't this set a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's wellbeing is out of your control.

Parents get their decisions overridden every day. Forced blood transfusions for children of religious parents, blocking children from travelling to certain countries so that they don't get their genitals removed, etc.

It's an ethical issue that boils down to "are you treating the patient" vs "are you treating the family and prolonging the suffering of the patient or keeping a corpse alive for their sake". Doctors have the right to override parent decisions if it's in the best interests of the patient. Up to the point of getting them arrested for child abuse/neglect.

A minor patient can't consent, so it's the doctors, not the parents who have the authority.

moo · Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Do you accept that your child can be taken away if you don't take care of them properly?

Yes and would expect and support it.

Doesn't this set a terrible precedence that decisions on you and your children's wellbeing is out of your control.

The operative word in that sentence being "wellbeing". The doctors and the courts in this case determined that the parents efforts were not toward the childs wellbeing and instead their own.

The doctors and the courts have a duty of care to the child - the child has rights independent to that of their parents.

Nothing ground breaking, new or unusual here - this case isn't even precedent setting.

moo · Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:24 am

aviationaware wrote:
moo wrote:
Oh yay, yet another idiot who thinks parental knowledge exceed that of a medical degree and years of experience treating...

I am sure that's the same thing the doctor who treated me thought when he said I had only 3 months to live and my parents should book a lot in the cemetery and my parents took me to a more competent doctor.
Your faith in the expertise of individual physicians is disturbing.

If, and its a big *if*, your story is true, then you did what you should have done and your parents sought a second opinion.

That has already been done in this case - read the link I posted earlier.

I have much more faith in the expertise of individual physicians than I do in the ability for emotional parents to make rational decisions.

aviationaware wrote:
moo wrote:
Further to that, the US doctor admitted in a court witness statement that he had significant financial interest in the treatments he was proposing.

The lamest excuse I have ever heard. Had the treatment gone wrong, in such a highly publicized case, the financial reprecussions would have been far greater than the gain he'd have had from this one case. That fact of the matter remains, this man was offering a potential solution...

Oh, right, then you are completely unawares of anything called an "Ethics Committee" then, eh?

Like the one that the US doctor refused to attend in the UK in January to allow his treatment offer to be examined ethically?

There is just so much wrong with this doctors involvement in this case, even putting the financial interest aside - how can he ethically continue to be an expert witness for the family when he has refused to read the patients notes, refused to examine the patient, refused to read expert second opinions and refused to attend an ethics committee hearing...?

Just what was he basing his expert witness testimony on?! Seemingly, made up information!

aviationaware wrote:

...and some beancounter on a court decided it was not worth it. Disgusting.

What "beancounter"? Money wasn't an issue here on the side of the hospital - the nucleotide treatment had already been offered in January, but was withdrawn after the patient suffered even more severe brain injury.

If money was an issue here, the family would have been allowed to take him to the US in April - it would have saved the hospital millions in legal fees.

tommy1808 · Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:53 am

Super80Fan wrote:
Unless the parents are abusive, creating an inhumane environment, or committing crimes on their children, the government shouldn't be involved at all. In this case, the hospital and the courts have shown clear intentions that they own poor Charlie.

in this case, the treatment by the parents, as understandable and well meant it may have been, was in the end abusive.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml · Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:56 am

Super80Fan wrote:
It's affiliated with University College London (public university) and the National Health Service, are you telling me that's not government?

GOSH is not run or managed by the UK Government. The NHS is not "the Government". :shakehead:

Channex757 wrote:
No it isn't.

GOSH is a Foundation Trust. Many NHS hospitals and groups are now Trusts. They get their funding as block grants from commissioning groups, and GOSH has a substantial charitable income too.

It's as independent as many of your US hospitals that are not corporate insurance mills.

These trusts get their money to provide a service. The greater NHS nowadays is more like a huge insurance company with an additional budget for buildings and investment. GP groups are the main money holders. In addition, the Trusts don't make clinical decisions; that is down to the doctors on the ward.

scbriml · Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:33 pm

It's just been reported by the BBC that Charlie's parents have confirmed that their "beautiful boy" has died.

A sad, but inevitable end.

Dutchy · Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:36 pm

May he found his peace.

Channex757 · Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:43 pm

Even at the end this couple could not stop meddling. They wanted him transferred to a hospice of their choosing and kept alive for additional days for their own benefit.

GOSH refused to let them take the child like this as they had not arranged for any specialist intensive care consultant.

DocLightning · Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:27 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
Would you agree, however, that that decision ought to rest in the hands of the parents, rather than the government/judiciary?

No. And I say that as a pediatrician. Parents are responsible for looking after the best interests and caring for their children. However, they are not the owners of those children and sometimes, it falls to courts with the assistance of physicians and medical ethicists to decide whether the parents truly have a child's best interests as a priority.

The Hippocratic oath also warns against the "twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." I have seen the terrible suffering visited on babies whose parents did not know when to let go. I have been forced to participate in the medical torture of these infants. I'm still angry about some of the things I was required to do. They haunt me in my sleep. I had a NICU attending who was fond of acquiescing to parental requests to resuscitate pre-viable infants and sometimes those babies would make it to the NICU, where I'd be forced to torture them until they died (sometimes months later). There was even one case in which I simply refused to participate and submitted myself for disciplinary action, but none was taken.

I also have patients who, by some horrible luck, have survived extreme NICU and PICU stays and they live in a living hell, wracked by spasms that dislocate their joints, screaming in pain, in and out of the hospital. That's what happens when you don't know when to say "no." That's what happens when you don't know when to give up. There are things far worse than death and I've seen them.

Part of the responsibility of a physician (and I will emphasize that it is physicians, not the government making these decisions) is to know when to stop. I'm glad someone made that call here.

scbriml · Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:31 pm

DocLightning wrote:

DocLightning, thanks for commenting on this topic. I was hoping you would provide a much needed sanity check for some of the more outrageous comments in this thread.

Channex757 · Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:57 pm

scbriml wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

DocLightning, thanks for commenting on this topic. I was hoping you would provide a much needed sanity check for some of the more outrageous comments in this thread.

What he said.

Much respect to you Doc for discussing things you might prefer to leave unsaid, and being totally tactful about it.

dtw2hyd · Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:59 pm

Hope he rests in peace in heaven, and I sincerely hope all those involved did their best in making this decision.

jetero · Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:51 am

scbriml wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Anyone claiming that a court has the right to decide something like this would have fit right in with the Nazis in the Reichstag.
Well done, you win today's "Most ludicrous post on the internet" award.

AviationAware is admittedly scared to get in an elevator with a woman unescorted for fear of being accused of rape. He's one of my original favorites that made me start posting (everyone--you can thank him!). AviationAware, for whatever reason, your stubborn, self-righteous, and abject lunacy is strangely inspiring. I wish I could believe so blindly and so fully in whatever ridiculousness you do. (Whatever you believe in, I'm pretty confident it's not God.) :white:

Rest in peace, Charlie, I'm sorry all of this had to be so public. :crying:

aviationaware · Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:43 am

You are absolutely right, I am a total agnostic.

ltbewr · Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:05 pm

Since Charlie has now passed away, the suffering of the child, parents and medical staff has finally ended. The debate of how we deal with similar situations in the future will continue.
Medicine can only go so far ethically, financially and morally to deal with persons, including adults, who end up in the twilight of ability to sustain life on their own. As I posted before, modern medical technology may exceed our ability to make the best moral decision. Decisions are also affected by guilt, religious beliefs, economic and emotional costs. In some places like the USA, our lawsuit happy culture and politics makes it more difficult to deal with such cases. The internet and modern media meant a story like Charlie's got world wide attention and persons pandering for political and personal/religious gain. I do hope from Charlie's situation we gain some better understanding on how to deal with such situations in the future.

tommy1808 · Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:23 pm

ltbewr wrote:
As I posted before, modern medical technology may exceed our ability to make the best moral decision. .

Not just medical technology. Everything around us. Menkind gets to chose how "we" die in a world without food scaresity: not being conceived, aborted, letting die, famine, disease.

Sometimes I wonder if some religious are just so much against welfare, because if people can finally starve to death again, contraception isn't needed anymore.

We live in a world ruled by money, reality is that life/death decisions are often made based on money. EMS stations are closed for not being cost effective, not for not saving lives, lots of things are about managing risks, not about removing them. Which is fine, optimum allocated of resources and such...

Charlie was one of the few that got to die on compassionate grounds, may his parents find peace.

Best regards
Thomas

DocLightning · Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:10 am

ltbewr wrote:
Since Charlie has now passed away, the suffering of the child, parents and medical staff has finally ended. The debate of how we deal with similar situations in the future will continue.

We turn to the Oath. We act like actual physicians and we turn to our Oath. That's how we handle it.

swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:...

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can but I will always look for a path to a cure for all diseases.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Pyrex · Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:12 pm

I hope one day I have the chance to just be driving along a road and see the bastard doctors, bureaucrats and judge who killed Charlie Gard lying on the ground, bleeding and in pain after a car accident. It would give me great pleasure to just walk away, whistling.

330west · Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:14 pm

Pyrex wrote:
I hope one day I have the chance to just be driving along a road and see the bastard doctors, bureaucrats and judge who killed Charlie Gard lying on the ground, bleeding and in pain after a car accident. It would give me great pleasure to just walk away, whistling.

You do realize that he would have been a vegetable, right? Imagine if you were in a horrific car accident and left in such a state. What would you want?

Dutchy · Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:16 pm

Pyrex wrote:
I hope one day I have the chance to just be driving along a road and see the bastard doctors, bureaucrats and judge who killed Charlie Gard lying on the ground, bleeding and in pain after a car accident. It would give me great pleasure to just walk away, whistling.

That is one scary answer. Hopefully, you don't really mean this, neither literally nor metaphorically.

tommy1808 · Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:39 pm

Pyrex wrote:
I hope one day I have the chance to just be driving along a road and see the bastard doctors, bureaucrats and judge who killed Charlie Gard lying on the ground, bleeding and in pain after a car accident. It would give me great pleasure to just walk away, whistling.

so, in other words, you would do exactly what you think they did and criticize them for, while you simply and obviously didn´t understand what happened?

best regards
Thomas

scbriml · Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:42 pm

Pyrex wrote:
I hope one day I have the chance to just be driving along a road and see the bastard doctors, bureaucrats and judge who killed Charlie Gard lying on the ground, bleeding and in pain after a car accident. It would give me great pleasure to just walk away, whistling.

None of those people killed Charlie. :shakehead:

But why let facts get in the way of your sick rant? :sarcastic:

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net